Codex @codex  0

The moment of inertia of a uniform length-$2l$ rod about its transverse central axis isThe kinetic energy decomposition about the center of mass gives $\boxed{T=M{V}^2/2+M{l}^2{\dot{\theta }}^2/6}$ for center speed $V$ and rod angle $\theta$.

For a falling arch with $0<\alpha <\pi /2$, the symmetric two hinged rods with both ends sliding on a floor have the following motion. The hinge remains vertically over the arch center. Their centers are ${\mathbf{R}}_{\pm }=(\pm l\cos \theta ,l\sin \theta )$, so each has squared speed $l^2{\dot{\theta }}^2$. Total kinetic energy is $T=4M{l}^2{\dot{\theta }}^2/3$, and total gravitational potential energy is $U=2Mgl\sin \theta$. Conservation of energy from rest at angle $\alpha$ gives ${\dot{\theta }}^2=3g(\sin \alpha -\sin \theta )/(2l)$. At the hinge impact $\theta =0$, its height derivative is $2l\cos \theta \dot{\theta }$, givingThe floor-contact assumption is consistent: differentiating the energy relation gives $\ddot{\theta }=-3g\cos \theta /(4l)$, and the normal reaction on each outer endpoint is $N=Mg[1+9{\sin }^2\theta -6\sin \alpha \sin \theta ]/4$. Completing the square shows $N\ge Mg{\cos }^2\alpha /4\ge 0$ throughout the fall.

Let $M_{\mathrm{tot}}={\sum }_i{m}_i$ and introduce positions relative to the centre of mass, ${\mathbf{\rho }}_i={\mathbf{r}}_i-\mathbf{R}$. The definition gives ${\sum }_i{m}_i{\mathbf{\rho }}_i=0$, and differentiation gives ${\sum }_i{m}_i{\dot{\mathbf{\rho }}}_i=0$. Expand the total kinetic energy:The cross term vanishes. This proves the kinetic energy decomposition about the center of mass:The decomposition itself holds without rigidity.

For a rigid body rotating about its centre of mass, ${\dot{\mathbf{\rho }}}_i=\mathbf{\omega }\times {\mathbf{\rho }}_i$. With unit axis vector $\mathbf{n}=\mathbf{\omega }/|\mathbf{\omega }|$, the moment of inertia about that axis iswhere $d_i$ is the perpendicular distance from the axis. Therefore

Use the arch geometry of two hinged rods sliding on a floor, with $A=O=(0,0)$ and $C$ on the other side of $B$. As long as $C$ remains in contact with the floor,The centres of mass of the two rods are $(l\cos \theta ,l\sin \theta )$ and $(3l\cos \theta ,l\sin \theta )$. Their squared speeds are respectively $l^2{\dot{\theta }}^2$ and $l^2(9{\sin }^2\theta +{\cos }^2\theta ){\dot{\theta }}^2$. Each uniform rod has moment of inertia $M{l}^2/3$ about its midpoint, and their angular velocities are $\dot{\theta }$ and $-\dot{\theta }$. Applying the kinetic energy decomposition about the center of mass to each rod givesThe gravitational potential energy is $U=2Mgl\sin \theta$. The fixed pivot does no work; neither does the frictionless floor reaction while $C$ slides horizontally. Conservation of energy from rest therefore givesOn the falling branch $\dot{\theta }$ is the negative square root. Just before the hinge reaches the floor, $\theta =0$, and its speed is $|\dot{B}|=2l|\dot{\theta }|$. Thus, under the maintained-contact interpretation,

There is a contact hypothesis behind this calculation. A floor can push upward but cannot pull downward. For $s=\sin \theta$ and $a=\sin \alpha$, the required normal reaction at $C$, found from the second rod's linear and angular equations, isFor the usual acute arch, this stays nonnegative throughout $0\le \theta \le \alpha$ exactly when $\sin \alpha \le 35/54$. Indeed, for $s>0$, its nonnegativity is $a\le 1/(18s)+11s/6+2s^3$, whose minimum is $35/54$ at $s=1/6$. For larger initial angles, the endpoint lifts before the hinge hits the floor, and the one-coordinate formula no longer governs the whole motion. The displayed impact speed is the intended floor-constrained answer; for unrestricted initial angles, maintained contact is an additional assumption. Subsequent free motion and possible reimpact would require a different model and contact/impact conditions.

For two particles, let $M=m_1+m_2$ and ${\mathbf{V}}_{\mathrm{cm}}=(m_1{\mathbf{v}}_1+m_2{\mathbf{v}}_2)/M$. The centre-of-mass frame velocities are ${\mathbf{v}}_i^{\ast }={\mathbf{v}}_i-{\mathbf{V}}_{\mathrm{cm}}$, so $m_1{\mathbf{v}}_1^{\ast }+m_2{\mathbf{v}}_2^{\ast }=0$. Thus before and after an isolated collision the two momentum vectors are equal and opposite. For an elastic collision their common magnitude is also unchanged: only their direction rotates.

The kinetic energy decomposition about the center of mass separates unchanged bulk translation from relative motion:The reduced mass $\mu$ reduces the calculation to one relative velocity. After solving the geometry in the centre-of-mass frame, add ${\mathbf{V}}_{\mathrm{cm}}$ to each velocity to return to the laboratory. The four panels below illustrate this for the subsequent example.

Constraint and example. A holonomic constraint can be written $f_{\alpha }(q_1,\dots ,q_n,t)=0$, with no irreducible dependence on velocities. A velocity relation is holonomic if it integrates to such an equation. For example, a particle constrained to a stationary circle satisfies $x^2+y^2={\ell }^2$, reducing its two Cartesian degrees of freedom to one angle. A nonholonomic constraint cannot be integrated in this way.

Kinematics and kinetic energy. Set $d=R-r>0$. In the plane of the original diagram, choose the orbital angle $\theta$ positive counterclockwise from vertically downward. The marked radius of the inner cylinder then has absolute orientation $\alpha =\theta -\varphi$ measured from the same downward direction. Its signed spin angular velocity is $\Omega =\dot{\theta }-\dot{\varphi }$, whileThe moment of inertia of a uniform solid cylinder is $I=m{r}^2/2$. Applying the kinetic energy decomposition about the center of mass gives

No slip. With tangential unit vector ${\mathbf{e}}_{\theta }=(\cos \theta ,\sin \theta )$, the inner contact point has velocity $(d\dot{\theta }+r\Omega ){\mathbf{e}}_{\theta }$. The fixed wall requires this to vanish. HenceBecause $r,R$ are constant, integration giveswhere the integration constant is zero with the marked-dot reference in the diagram and continuously unwrapped angles. This is a holonomic constraint, even though it was first obtained from a condition on velocities.

Oscillations. The gravitational potential energy above the lowest position is $V=mgd(1-\cos \theta )$. Eliminating $\varphi$ gives the reduced LagrangianThe Euler-Lagrange equation becomesThus the bottom is a stable equilibrium, and for $|\theta |\ll 1$ there is simple harmonic motion, withThe extra rotational kinetic energy reduces the frequency compared with a particle sliding without friction along the same circular path. The small oscillations inside a circular cylinder formula applies with inertia ratio $\gamma =1/2$.

Friction and energy. Let $F_t$ be the signed tangential contact force in the ${\mathbf{e}}_{\theta }$ direction. Applying Newton's second law to translation and the torque equation to rotation givesUsing the rolling without slipping condition yieldsExcept at special instants, static friction is needed to produce the spin acceleration. There is no sliding at the contact point, whose instantaneous velocity is zero; therefore this force does no total work. Its translational and rotational powers cancel: $F_{t}d\dot{\theta }+F_{t}r\Omega =0$. The stationary normal reaction likewise does no work. With a rigid wall, adequate static friction, and no rolling resistance, conservation of energy gives

Angular momentum. The cylinder's spin angular momentum $I\Omega$ is generally not conserved because the contact friction exerts a torque about its center of mass. About the fixed outer-cylinder center $O$, the angular momentum decomposition about the centre of mass givesGravity and friction exert the external torqueThus the rolling cylinder does not generally conserve angular momentum, although it conserves mechanical energy. There is a special geometric cancellation at $R=3r/2$: then $L_O$ and its torque vanish identically for this planar motion. Angular momentum of a larger isolated system including the wall and Earth is a separate conservation statement.

Scope of the holonomic reduction. The integrated constraint is exact at every angle for planar rolling without slipping with sustained contact; it is not restricted to small oscillations. Completing a full turn requires tracking angle winding rather than reducing each angle separately modulo $2\pi$. This global bookkeeping does not make the local velocity relation nonintegrable.

However, arbitrary initial conditions need not sustain this ideal rolling motion. The inward normal reaction and the required friction areContact requires $N\ge 0$, and a finite coefficient ${\mu }_s$ of static friction requires $|F_t|\le {\mu }_{s}N$. If either fails, the cylinder detaches or slips and the one-coordinate rolling Lagrangian no longer applies. Slipping contact allows $\theta$ and $\varphi$ to be independent; detachment removes the fixed center-distance constraint. These changes alone do not establish a nonholonomic constraint. Allowing general three-dimensional reorientation can introduce nonintegrable rolling constraints, but that motion is outside the diagram's two-angle planar model. Thus the stated planar rolling constraint is holonomic throughout its regime of validity; it cannot be imposed on every physically possible motion.

Two equal uniform rods of length $2l$ and mass $M$, one pivoted to the floor and the other endpoint sliding on it, have arch coordinates $B=(2l\cos \theta ,2l\sin \theta )$ and $C=(4l\cos \theta ,0)$. The kinetic energy decomposition about the center of mass gives $T=\frac{4}{3}M{l}^2(1+3{\sin }^2\theta ){\dot{\theta }}^2$, while gravitational potential energy is $2Mgl\sin \theta$. Conservation of energy from rest at angle $\alpha$ gives the displayed equation and hinge impact speed $\sqrt{6gl\sin \alpha }$, provided contact is maintained. The endpoint's normal reaction becomes negative during this constrained fall if $\sin \alpha >35/54$; a unilateral floor then permits detachment and the constrained formula no longer describes the entire motion.